Reflections on a diocesan budget

Cathedraticum, a Latin word, is the name for the tax each Catholic parish must pay its bishop.  This diocesan assessment fee equates to a percentage of the weekly parish collection plate.  Canon law says the assessment rate should be determined by local custom or provincial council.  In U.S. dioceses, the assessment tax rate is anywhere from 5% - 15% typically.    

The bishop also conducts a diocesan services appeal (DSA) every year.  These donations, combined with the revenues from assessment taxes, fund most of the diocese’s annual operating budget.

Church officials universally seem to complain that parish donations are down significantly.  Based upon weekly reports in the local church bulletins, I do see a marked reduction in weekly parish donations.  The rationale suggested has been declines in both the economy and Mass attendance.

I track the financial statements of my diocese since they are posted on the diocesan website.  The following graph tracks revenues from my diocese’s assessments (taxation upon parishes), DSA, and the combined total, for the past 6 years.    

 

Since parish contributions are down significantly, if the diocesan tax rate remained steady, the line for diocesan assessment revenues should also decline.  As you can see, in my diocese, diocesan assessment revenues actually have remained quite steady with an overall slight trending increase over the last 6 years.  This is inconsistent with parish collection trends.  For the assessment to remain at constant levels when parish collections are lower, the diocese has to increase the tax rate, taking a larger portion of parishes’ weekly collections.  At a time when parishes are already suffering from low collections, why would the diocese increase its tax upon parishes? 

My diocese is located in one of the most economically depressed parts of the U.S.  Yet, it appears DSA and assessment contributions are pretty stable.  I assumed that fairly stable diocesan contribution levels would mean the diocese’s support of Catholic Charities also would be stable or possibly even increase due to the area’s increased need.  Imagine my surprise to see the diocese decreasing the percentage of its budget going to Catholic Charities. 

The graph below shows that the diocese also invests a shrinking percentage of its budget on things like Catholic education and catechesis (children and religious education) while increasing the percentage of the budget going to formation and the chancery (the clergy and bishop).  The percentage of budget going towards formation now surpasses the percentage supporting Catholic Charities, and the percentage allocated for the bishop’s office (chancery) is nearing the funding level for Catholic Charities also.  Why?

Finally, why is the largest part of the diocesan budget administrative costs, at over 28%?  Since the chancery office is the bishop’s office, it is also a form of administrative overhead and could be added to the amounts spent on administration, adding almost another 18%. Those two areas account for almost 50% of the central services budget.

When choosing where to donate my money, I look for charities with low administrative costs, in the 15% range.  Why do administrative costs consume such a large portion of the church’s budget?   Do these investment priorities reflect the gospel?  Might a larger investment in quality pastoral planning help reduce administrative costs and increase the ability to support Catholic Charities?
 

An alternate universe...

This past week the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) held their Spring General Assembly in Seattle.  Their behavior at and statements from that meeting confuse me greatly. 

The bishops voted (187-5) to tweak their 2002 chartered norms for “Protecting God’s Children” by adding child pornography and abuse of people who “habitually lack reason” to the norms’ list of abuses.  I’m glad they are in the norms now but wonder in bewilderment why adding them took 9 years.

I also stagger in confusion when I see that Bishop Blase Cupich, USCCB Protection of Children and Young People Committee chair, said at the meeting, “The charter has served the church well.”  He said, “The charter works,” and, “It is a helpful tool as we keep our pledge to protect children, promote healing and rebuild trust with our people.”

The bishops and I must live in two different worlds.  During this past year, actually just the past few months, inhabitants of my universe learned that Philadelphia’s Cardinal Rigali didn’t follow the norms, leaving dozens of accused priests in active ministry.  Two grand jury reports and the arrest of some diocesan clergy finally inspired him to follow the norms in February, 2011.  However that same month he initially asserted that no priests with credible allegations were still active in ministry.  Before actually complying with the norms, Cardinal Rigali falsely reported to USCCB auditors that the Philadelphia Archdiocese fully complied with norms.  In my universe, falsehoods erode rather than rebuild trust.   

Nonetheless, the USCCB’s April, 2011 annual compliance report counted the Philadelphia Archdiocese as “compliant” because the audit relies on self-reporting.  Even without Philadelphia correctly categorized as “non-compliant”, the report still indicated 55 of the U.S.’s 197 dioceses were non-compliant.  Saying “It’s working” when more than 25% of dioceses self-report non- compliance seems euphemistic at best.  Since dioceses with gross violations, like Philadelphia, can and do self-report as compliant, compliance levels remain a mystery.  These factors also impede rebuilding trust.

In May, 2011 the Gallup, N.M. “Independent” ran a five-part report discussing the Gallup diocese’s failure to comply with the USCCB’s norms.  The paper reported such violations as the bishop’s failure to meet with the mandated diocesan review board and failure to respond to abuse victims’ requests for meetings.  With numerous violations, why did the Gallup Diocese falsely report as compliant?  Does this engender trust?  Does ignoring victims promote healing?

Last month a Kansas City priest was arrested on child pornography charges.  He remained active in ministry more than a year after a Catholic grade school principal conveyed concerns to diocesan officials.  Why did the Kansas City Diocese falsely self-report as compliant? 

Compliance seems mythical only.  Perhaps extensive non-compliance explains why in 2011 bishop-funded Catholic lobbyist groups increasingly lobby against legislative reform on child abuse statute of limitations.  Rather than comply with their own rules so as to reduce causes of lawsuits, bishops try to reduce lawsuits by blocking abuse victims from filing valid ones.  These behaviors do not protect children or promote healing.

Archbishop Thomas Hursley’s statements this week were also confusing and scandalous.   He suggested the assembly set a goal of reinstating abusive priests to active ministry under the auspices of forgiveness.    At least Archbishop Hursley is aware my universe exists because he acknowledged his suggestion might infuriate its inhabitants.  He said, “This might stir up SNAP (a network for abuse survivors) – so what? The press might come after us. It’s time we confronted them. The time is now, not later on.”  In my universe, child abusers have proven incapable of abandoning predatory practices; returning them to ministry countermands protecting children.  In my universe, blatantly callous disregard for survivors’ feelings undermines their healing. 

Bishop Cupich declined Archbishop Hursley’s suggestion but did not rebuke him for his remarks.  Perhaps that is because Cupich and Hursley occupy the same alternate universe where non-compliance masquerades as compliance, where rampant non-compliance protects children, where lobbying against victim-sponsored legislation promotes healing, and where denial, deceit and lies build trust.  This is not the case in my universe.

How should inhabitants in my universe respond?

What priest shortage?

The U.S. currently has over 25,000 Catholic priests who were forced to an “inactive” status because they got married yet who are willing to serve, according to CORPUS an international married priest organization.  To put this number in perspective, according to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ website, there are 27,284 diocesan priests in the U.S.  Thus, the U.S. has almost as many priests in a forced inactive status as it has diocesan priests.  Do we really have a priest shortage?

Between diocesan priests and the additional 12,000 or so religious order priests, the U.S. has around 40,000 Catholic priests who cover all U.S. parishes except the 3,000 – 4,000 parishes without assigned clergy.   Reactivating 25,000 married priests would easily fill that gap.  Do we really have a priest shortage?

Worldwide there are over 125,000 married inactive priests as compared to the 400,000 or so current active priests.  Between 50,000 and 60,000 parishes worldwide have no priest, a number easily erased by reactivating 125,000 married priests.   Do we really have a priest shortage?

For over 1,000 years, the church had married priests and popes. Even today the church has married priests such as Anglican priests who converted to Catholicism or priests in the Ukrainian Catholic Church.  The church law regarding priestly celibacy for the Roman rite is considered a discipline rather than doctrinal.  Thus, changing the rule about priestly celibacy just needs the pope to say it’s o.k.  Why does the pope prefer creating an artificial priest shortage rather than caring for the flock?  Why does he prefer closing parishes to allowing married clergy consistently in all Catholic rites? 

All I can say is, “What priest shortage?”

Who would fear a Catholic Bill of Rights?

In the late 1700s, grassroots founders of the United States wrote a “Bill of Rights”.  This document’s purpose was to limit what the government could or couldn’t do regarding individual liberties.  It is a cornerstone of American culture of freedom and has been a model for other governments on protecting people’s rights. 

Similarly inspired, the American Catholic Council (ACC), a grassroots organization, has drafted a Catholic Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.  They draw upon not only the American Bill of Rights as an example, but upon Catholic Doctrine regarding human rights and responsibilities.  They also held listening sessions to gain the people’s input.

The current draft of the Catholic Bill of Rights and Responsibilities is as follows:

 1. Primacy of Conscience. Every Catholic has the right and responsibility to develop an informed conscience and to act in accord with it.
2. Community. Every Catholic has the right and responsibility to participate in a Eucharistic community and the right to responsible pastoral care.
3. Universal Ministry. Every Catholic has the right and responsibility to proclaim the Gospel and to respond to the community’s call to ministerial leadership.
4. Freedom of Expression. Every Catholic has the right to freedom of expression and the freedom to dissent.
5. Sacraments. Every Catholic has the right and responsibility to participate in the fullness of the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church.
6. Reputation. Every Catholic has the right to a good name and to due process.
7. Governance. Every Catholic and every Catholic community has the right to a meaningful participation in decision making, including the selection of leaders.
8. Participation. Every Catholic has the right and responsibility to share in the interpretation of the Gospel and Church tradition.
9. Councils. Every Catholic has the right to convene and speak in assemblies where diverse voices can be heard.
10. Social Justice. Every Catholic has the right and the responsibility to promote social justice in the world at large as well as within the structures of the Church.

This weekend in Detroit the ACC will present this Bill of Rights to a few thousand conference attendees in hopes of ratification.  This seems a positive thing for a church riddled by abuse scandal after abuse scandal.   Yet Detroit’s Archbishop Vigneron has issued multiple warnings for laypeople to avoid the conference and threatened to defrock priests who attend.  Though event organizers have repeatedly tried to work with him, he has not responded.  Instead he has drawn incorrect assumptions and told his flock to stay away based upon false accusations of the ACC.  Despite ignoring multiple efforts for communication initiated by ACC leaders, he is quoted in the news as saying the opposite – that he has tried to communicate with ACC leaders and been ignored.  In response to and in spite of the Archbishop’s violation of the 8^th Commandment “bearing false witness”, conference registration has soared.

Who would fear a Bill of Rights?  Why would an institution that focuses on God-given free will fear a document that guarantees protection of people’s free will?   Why would the church, comprised of the people of God, want to preserve unchecked power for ordained people and not guarantee any rights to laypeople?  Especially in light of abuse scandal after abuse scandal, why wouldn’t people insist that the church's governance model change?